Bug#925982: pretty useless without local_scan

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:08:53PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2019-04-03 Adam Borowski <kilobyte at angband.pl> wrote:
> > (Justification: exim is nearly completely useless for receiving mails for
> > an Internet domain -- there's ~100 spams per day per address.)
> 
> > I've wasted time concurrently coming up with Andreas' findings -- and
> > indeed, rebuilding with HAVE_LOCAL_SCAN=yes makes spam filtering work again.
> 
> I am yet undecided whether it is better to hotfix this bug or do the
> right thing and drop the dynamic local_scan patch and adding a
> Breaks: sa-exim

Well, but in that case, what are we supposed to use for spam filtering?

I did not have the time to look at alternatives. and probably same applies
to many other people for whom keeping a mail server running is not a primary
task.  Just "apt install exim4 sa-exim" is/was a nice instant setup,
requiring no maintenance other than some adjustments to handle whatever new
spam campaign some miscreants launched.

On today's Internet, a receiving MTA without spam filtering is simply not an
option.
 
> sa-exim is dead upstream since 2006 and seems to be really broken
> now. See 
> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20180726.113354.6d03efde.en.html

Haven't seen this -- and I'm using btrfs on all machines I control.

> and #879687

Seems like I have "chunking_advertise_hosts =" on my primary server but I
don't recall configuring it manually -- so no idea where it came from. 
Installing buster's exim4 on a fresh container doesn't have this setting --
regression?


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀